Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 85(5): 1274-1284, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34363909

ABSTRACT

Dermatologists diagnose and treat many immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Understanding the inherent immune dysregulation of these diseases as well as the additional disruption that comes as a result of IMID treatments has been important during the COVID-19 pandemic. With vaccines becoming widely available, dermatologists need to be familiar with the risks and benefits of vaccination in these patients, particularly those taking biologics, in order to have informed discussions with their patients. In this review, we present the current evidence related to COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with IMID and review existing recommendations for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Given the current evidence, there is minimal concern that these patients are at any greater risk of harm from COVID-19 vaccination compared to healthy controls. For most, the benefit of avoiding severe COVID-19 through vaccination will outweigh the theoretical risk of these vaccines. A question that is still outstanding is whether patients on biologics will generate a sufficient immune response to the vaccine, which may be dependent on the specific biologic therapy and indication being treated. This underscores the importance of following patients with IMID after vaccination to determine the safety, efficacy, and duration of the vaccine in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Dermatitis/immunology , Immunocompromised Host , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Contraindications, Drug , Dermatitis/drug therapy , Humans , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
2.
JAMA Dermatol ; 158(5): 504-512, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35385051

ABSTRACT

Importance: Population-based skin cancer screening is currently not recommended owing to lack of data to quantify the balance of benefits and harms. Objective: To compare thickness-specific incidence of melanoma in screened vs unscreened patients following the initiation of a primary care-based skin cancer screening initiative. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study of a quality improvement initiative was conducted from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2018, among patients 35 years and older presenting for a primary care visit at primary care practices within an academic and community-based health care system during the study period. Data analysis was performed January 2020 to January 2022. Interventions: Primary care clinicians were offered training in melanoma identification through skin examination and encouraged to offer annual screening to patients 35 years and older. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thickness of melanomas diagnosed in screened and unscreened patients. Results: Among 595 799 analyzed screen-eligible patients, 144 851 (24.3%) were screened at least once. Screened patients were older (median [IQR] age, 59 [49-67] vs 55 [45-66] years) and more likely to be female (82 244 [56.8%] vs 250 806 [55.6%]; P < .001) and non-Hispanic White (124 747 [86.1%] vs 375 890 [83.4%]; P < .001) than unscreened patients. After adjusting for age, sex, and race, screened patients were more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ (incidence, 30.4 vs 14.4; hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.1-3.1; P < .001) or thin invasive (≤1 mm) melanoma (incidence, 24.5 vs 16.1; HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.2; P < .001). Screened patients were also more likely than unscreened patients to be diagnosed with in situ (incidence, 26.7 vs 12.9; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.6; P < .001) or thin invasive (≤1 mm) interval melanomas (melanoma diagnosed at least 60 days after initial screening examination) (incidence, 18.5 vs 14.4; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7; P = .03). Incidence of melanoma thicker than 4 mm in unscreened and screened patients, respectively, was 3.3 and 2.7 (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .38) for all melanomas and 2.7 and 1.5 (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2; P = .15) for interval melanomas. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, primary care-based melanoma screening was associated with increased detection of thin melanoma, raising concern about overdiagnosis. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to determine the influence of screening on the incidence of thick melanoma and outcomes associated with high costs and poor outcomes, such as metastasis.


Subject(s)
Melanoma , Skin Neoplasms , Delivery of Health Care , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Melanoma/diagnosis , Melanoma/epidemiology , Melanoma/pathology , Middle Aged , Skin Neoplasms/diagnosis , Skin Neoplasms/epidemiology , Skin Neoplasms/pathology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL